If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I'm not holding out to much hope for this years show but I sure hope they give the show a more military feel to it if they are in fact going to be at war.

A few of the things we should expect to see this season IMO will be:

-Even though it will be a time of war no major charaters will die unless
the actor is planning on leaving the show for another project.

-T'Pol's forbidden emotions as a Vulcan will be the center point for many many storylines.

-The crew will be possessed by some sort of alien lifeform and loose control of the ship at some point.

-The away team will always consist of the most important people running the ship.

-New alien lifeforms will take center stage as the ship's main adversaries rather than the established more interesting races like the Klingons.

-At least one or more of the crew members will be captured or stranded at some point.

If ST is going to survive and continue to be a profitable franchise for the future they better drop the old formula and produce some new and interesting twists. I hope this make or break season delivers but my instincts say it won't.

So does anyone know when the series debut is?

Talk Show Host Interviewing Joker: “Your said to have only killed about 600 people Joker. Now don’t take this the wrong way but I think you’ve been holding out on us.”

After seeing the season 3 premeire I doubt it can be saved now. They're up to old tricks in a new form just to get easy ratings once again all while trying to convince people that they care about Star Trek. Horse. Hockey.

As long as there is an existance of Berman and Braga in any control of the Star Trek franchise I hope it now crash and burns around them.

"Hokey packaging and ancient gimmicks are no match for good detail on your figure, kid.""I am a Klingot from Oklahoma in human boy form.""We came, we saw, we conquered... We, woke up!"

After seeing the season 3 premeire I doubt it can be saved now. They're up to old tricks in a new form just to get easy ratings once again all while trying to convince people that they care about Star Trek. Horse. Hockey.

As long as there is an existance of Berman and Braga in any control of the Star Trek franchise I hope it now crash and burns around them.

Totally agree, "more of the same with a different twist" is not my idea of a "big change", and changing the music part of the themesong to something more country-sounding removed the tune's entire meaning.

Darth Vader is becoming the Mickey Mouse of Star Wars.

"In Brooklyn, a castle, is where dwell I"

The use of a lightsaber does not make one a Jedi, it is the ability to not use it.

I think we have to define ourselves based on what era we're a fan of now, since "modern" Trek today is Enterprise and the upcoming TOS-prequel movie being made by JJ Abrams (I fear this one will be awful). So I see what you're saying, I'd call it being a "TNG-era fan" though since that era's no longer "modern". Plus, TNG is 20 years old this year and I hate to say it, but it feels sorta dated too.

I didn't really give it that much thought. In my use, "modern" was just meant to convey the ongoing production continuity (which may not be the word I'm looking for) that began with TNG. And as an aside though I included Voyager in that same era, I was never enormously fond of that series, though it did have its moments. I'm glad no one called me on that.

Originally Posted by JediTricks

One thing I can stand up for on TOS is the maturity of the storytelling, granted they were forced to do some cheesy scripts, but there was some stuff in there that even today resonates strongly. And a couple things I think made TOS work so well that the later Treks didn't have (especially Enterprise) are a more shakespearean-yet-raw tone to the drama, and an ability to have a sense of humor

I think my sense that the show lacked maturity goes hand in hand with my feeling that the show all but flashed the words, "THIS IS THE MORAL OF OUR STORY" on the screen during moments which were almost painfully obviously conveying the moral. The Wheel of Morality from Animaniacs could have coveyed the moral with less heavy handedness. My favorite example is the episode where that guy (the Riddler?) has one half of his face black and one half white while the other race in his species had the colors reversed. I've seen more subtle statements on race relations in pop music videos.

Originally Posted by JedTricks

you watch DS9 and even when they try to do humorous eps like Tribbles or the the baseball ep or the spy eps, it stands out like a sore thumb because of how humorless the rest of the eps are.

Really? DS9 did so many quirky episodes and many episodes dropped humor into the mix. If it was simply Odo busting Quark on something or O'Brien and Bashir coming out of the holosuites in full Spitfire pilot regalia drinking to buddies lost--or just the crazy relationship they had in general--there was often something to snicker at. I've always felt DS9 was a show that didn't always feel it had to take itself so seriously. Hell, just given the camp and unintentional humor of TOS, I always felt it would have come off better if it hadn't always tried to be so earnest. Now DS9 was often hit or miss in its attempts and there are some episodes that feel down right weird, but I give the show high marks for trying to break out of its own molds.

Originally Posted by JediTricks

I wish Paramount would get off their arses and do those books you mentioned, but they seem reticent now - there's still no real defined Ent-E or Defiant book (Vulcantouch got me the DS9 tech manual before he died, but it's not much of a Defiant book).

Well, I've always considered myself a Trek tech geek--especially concerning the starships. Even though I really haven't watched Trek since Voyager went off the air, I still keep a running list of established Starfleet ships, though currently it's updated by the lazy method of dropping by D. Joseph Creighton's Star Trek Ships: Expanded list. When the TNG Technical Manual came out, I thought I could die right then having lived a complete and full life. I even reserved two copies of the DS9 Technical Manual just to guarantee I had a copy as soon as possible (bought them both too). I'm still ****ed there was no Voyager manual, though Star Trek: The Magazine helped us out on that some. I know the DS9 Technical Manual was poorly received but a lot of that had to do with the fact that it was written by Sternbach who really didn't work on DS9. His baby from the beginning of the design process forward was Voyager. I think he really could have written something cool.

As far as the -E goes, I got the Simon and Schuster Captain's Chair which did give me quite a bit on that ship but wow I wanted so much more. And I'd love more on the First Contact ships (and we got bits and pieces of that from the DS9 Technical Manual) as I already mentioned, more on Prometheus, more on Equinox . . . just more. I was really excited there a few years ago when information came out that Michael Okuda had shown a select few fans some of the slides from the infamous Slide Show from the Battle of Wolf 359 but that no one was allowed to show the slides themselves because there was a project in the works to put those all into a starship book of some kind. I think that project got eviscerated into the lame Starship Spotter which wasn't even handled by Okuda. Wow, an Enterprise-E Technical Manual, Voyager Technical Manual and a ship-by-ship reference of most of the ships seen written by Okuda and Sternbach. Years ago I could have died happily with the TNG manual, but now I'll be forced to walk the Earth forever because these are never going to be done.

Oh and since I'm randomly ranting about starships, I wish to hell and back that the most recent edition of the Encyclopedia (post-Insurrection) gave the classes and registries of the newer ships. Sentinel, Musashi, Destiny, Sarek, Sitak--I could go on--none of them have established registries and few even are of known class.

I didn't really give it that much thought. In my use, "modern" was just meant to convey the ongoing production continuity (which may not be the word I'm looking for) that began with TNG. And as an aside though I included Voyager in that same era, I was never enormously fond of that series, though it did have its moments. I'm glad no one called me on that.

Yeah, I tried to overlook your obvious deficiency in pointing to Voyager as simply a timeline issue, otherwise it would have been a much different discussion path.

I see what you mean, but since we're not in the 24th century, that post-TNG-era timeline is actually further from us. It is the "most modern" in the Trek universe though, but that's a complicated concept.

I think my sense that the show lacked maturity goes hand in hand with my feeling that the show all but flashed the words, "THIS IS THE MORAL OF OUR STORY" on the screen during moments which were almost painfully obviously conveying the moral. The Wheel of Morality from Animaniacs could have coveyed the moral with less heavy handedness. My favorite example is the episode where that guy (the Riddler?) has one half of his face black and one half white while the other race in his species had the colors reversed. I've seen more subtle statements on race relations in pop music videos.

Anything from season 3, such as the one you cited "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield", is going to be less nuanced than the previous seasons, in large part because NBC took production of the show away from Gene Roddenberry and slashed its already shambled budget. But look at Patterns of Force from season 2 where Spock agrees with the theory behind the totalitarianstic fascism of the Space Nazis; or Bread & Circuses where Uhura has to explain to the center chair trinity that the local rebels weren't sun worshipers, they were Son worshipers - the Son of God. The one thing I really liked about Kirk's captaining is that he could recognize the problems of a situation, the inequities and moral ambiguities, but still act when it called upon without question: "blow up the ship to save a few local natives? Let's do it!" His brash nature wasn't for war but for peace, you rarely see someone that sure of humanistic ideals as Kirk.

Sure, the show was unsubtle about its forward-thinking views on issues like race relations, but that was part of the brazen optimism of Gene Roddenberry, he knew in his heart that humanity could get past many of its selfish behaviors, that in 300 years there would be no ambiguity to the questions that plague us today - the right answers to our problems would be non-issues by then and they could move on to their own types of problems. Here's an example of what I mean: today, there's no question that serfdom and slavery are abhorrent, but 300 years ago it was a moral ambiguity and they would probably view our easy opinions on those ideas as ignorant snap judgments.

Really? DS9 did so many quirky episodes and many episodes dropped humor into the mix. If it was simply Odo busting Quark on something or O'Brien and Bashir coming out of the holosuites in full Spitfire pilot regalia drinking to buddies lost--or just the crazy relationship they had in general--there was often something to snicker at. I've always felt DS9 was a show that didn't always feel it had to take itself so seriously. Hell, just given the camp and unintentional humor of TOS, I always felt it would have come off better if it hadn't always tried to be so earnest.

IMO, that's not the same, that's a contrast of humor, Jake and Nog do a bunch of cute stuff for us to giggle with, but then they cut away to Sisko brooding about one more misery to befall the galaxy. Any and every attempt at humor was an uneasy mix at best, there was always a solid division between them when it really counted. There was never an episode that ended with Kira and Sisko standing around laughing at a bad pun O'Brien made if the episode was serious throughout.

Me too, though I generally focus on the onscreen ones heavily and just notice the secondary ones a little.

When the TNG Technical Manual came out, I thought I could die right then having lived a complete and full life.

You and me both, I first thumbed through it right after I bought it and really enjoyed it, then a little while later when I was taking a big trip, I read it cover to cover and enjoyed every page thoroughly, even the most theoretical material. (I had the Mr Scott's Guide one, it was good too but nowhere near as complete.)

I know the DS9 Technical Manual was poorly received but a lot of that had to do with the fact that it was written by Sternbach who really didn't work on DS9.

Oh, I didn't even realize that was the reason, that explains it a lot!

As far as the -E goes, I got the Simon and Schuster Captain's Chair which did give me quite a bit on that ship but wow I wanted so much more.

Same here, that was a fun CD-ROM but woefully underdetailed. Heck, back when First Contact came out, StarTrek.com had more detailed info on the Ent-E as a major feature for the movie and that still wasn't even remotely enough.

I think that project got eviscerated into the lame Starship Spotter which wasn't even handled by Okuda.

Yeah, when I saw what became of that project, it was a real head-shaker.

Oh and since I'm randomly ranting about starships, I wish to hell and back that the most recent edition of the Encyclopedia (post-Insurrection) gave the classes and registries of the newer ships. Sentinel, Musashi, Destiny, Sarek, Sitak--I could go on--none of them have established registries and few even are of known class.

I fear Berman and the producers no longer care about that stuff, they seem to encourage the designers to get in and out with as little thought as possible, the ship must serve the story and anything else can go to hell - it just has to look the way they want it to look.

Darth Vader is becoming the Mickey Mouse of Star Wars.

"In Brooklyn, a castle, is where dwell I"

The use of a lightsaber does not make one a Jedi, it is the ability to not use it.

Yeah, I tried to overlook your obvious deficiency in pointing to Voyager as simply a timeline issue, otherwise it would have been a much different discussion path.

Thanks for cutting some much needed slack on that one.

Anything from season 3, such as the one you cited "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield", is going to be less nuanced than the previous seasons, in large part because NBC took production of the show away from Gene Roddenberry and slashed its already shambled budget.

You have the most amazing talent for coming up with points that I can only just pause and accept as possibly being true. Most unfortunately my mental Trek encyclopedia has only been losing information for the past several years--especially where it concerns TOS, so I can't remember things like the title to the episode Let That Be Your Last Battlefield.

But look at Patterns of Force from season 2 where Spock agrees with the theory behind the totalitarianstic fascism of the Space Nazis; or Bread & Circuses where Uhura has to explain to the center chair trinity that the local rebels weren't sun worshipers, they were Son worshipers - the Son of God. The one thing I really liked about Kirk's captaining is that he could recognize the problems of a situation, the inequities and moral ambiguities, but still act when it called upon without question: "blow up the ship to save a few local natives? Let's do it!" His brash nature wasn't for war but for peace, you rarely see someone that sure of humanistic ideals as Kirk.

I've always kind of wondered if TNG and all the sequel series didn't suffer a bit for being part of a world where a lot of the TOS ideals have already become fact. I'm sure I just can't see my own time period objectively, but it always seems like their are simply less issues for these later shows to look at. It always seems like the late sixties simply had for more issues for the writers to deal with and far fewer shows really trying to address them. Now it seems like anything Trek tries to deal with is either addressed sixty times a night on broadcast television alone and ninety times on cable or is so deeply taboo that the producers have to scale it back and opt not to do it. Again, maybe I'm just not seeing my time period objectively (and I certainly don't want to imply our time period is anywhere near perfect or that there are not serious issues), and maybe the producers simply lack the juevos to push ahead as they would have back in the sixties. Maybe I could say that there are fewer black and white issues in today's world and far more moral ambiguities, which not only allows more subtlety but necessitates it. It feels more mature to me to come away from the episode with questions rather than a feeling that they characters did the right thing and the only right thing. Certainly not saying I'm right and anyone else is wrong. It's just my preference.

Now that said, I could contradict myself by citing The City on the Edge of Forever. There was certainly no easy answer to that one and the episode came off beautifully. But I will say that kind of uncertainty was the exception to the rule.

IMO, that's not the same, that's a contrast of humor, Jake and Nog do a bunch of cute stuff for us to giggle with, but then they cut away to Sisko brooding about one more misery to befall the galaxy. Any and every attempt at humor was an uneasy mix at best, there was always a solid division between them when it really counted. There was never an episode that ended with Kira and Sisko standing around laughing at a bad pun O'Brien made if the episode was serious throughout.

Ah, the laugh out. Yeah, I haven't watched an episode of TOS in a while so I never even thought about the laugh out. Humor intermixed throughout the episode? I'd still defend the viewpoint that there was a good mix through many of the episodes, but anyone would have to agree (though it's not your point), that DS9 certainly racked up more humorous episodes than any other Trek series, and certainly took more risks than any other. The risk was felt in that some of the humor involved some serious head scratching, but I think more conventional humor would have served better in many places. Think First Contact. It was very dramatic, very action oriented, but most of the humor was fairly conventional save the greatest risk: Cochrane. Not only could he have easily gone over the top but he was a reenvisioning of a character we had already met. I think they did well with it. Cochrane made me laugh with almost every line--still does, but it could have easily fallen flat. Maybe another problem is that the humor was often relegated to the B plot.

Oh, I didn't even realize that was the reason, that explains it a lot!

From what I understand, he had his heart set on a Voyager Technical Manual, which had actually gotten early approval at Pocket Books. I'm wondering--and I'm purely speculating here--if Pocket Books didn't tell him they had to make a DS9 manual first. I can't call up the information on IMDB right now, but I know Sternbach wasn't credited as technical advisor on DS9 and I don't think Okuda was either, and I asked Sternbach a question one time about Defiant and was informed he could only guess because by that time he hadn't worked on Defiant in any capacity. I know Andre Bormanis served as science consultant, but I'm curious how much of the DS9 Technical Manual Sternbach had to make from whole cloth. The TNG Technical Manual was largely based on the technical guide for the writers, and I'm certain Sternbach would have made the guide for Voyager equally as in depth. I read somewhere just how much work in terms of manilla file folder thickness went into his write-up for Voyager but we're working with my time-addled mind.

Same here, that was a fun CD-ROM but woefully underdetailed. Heck, back when First Contact came out, StarTrek.com had more detailed info on the Ent-E as a major feature for the movie and that still wasn't even remotely enough.

Sadly at that time I had no regular access to the Internet. But yeah, it was fun. I wonder if I ever did all there was to do in that. I can barely remember most of it, but I know I unlocked the hidden Klingon bridge from the -D's bridge.

Yeah, when I saw what became of that project, it was a real head-shaker.

I still vaguely think about picking up the Starship Spotter book from time to time but then I think about what it could have been and I just can't bring myself to do it. I've also vaguely thought about picking up the Star Charts book. It looks beautiful--far more detailed than I would expect, and Timo, one of the contributors, was one of those friend of a friend types who hung out online with the Ex Astris crowd. But even at that time my Trek interest was waning.

I fear Berman and the producers no longer care about that stuff, they seem to encourage the designers to get in and out with as little thought as possible, the ship must serve the story and anything else can go to hell - it just has to look the way they want it to look.

Yeah, I'm more than happy to give Berman hell. He's mucked things up pretty well, but he was responsible for much of the goodness that was TNG. I think Berman should have been grooming his own Berman and handed off the reigns when he started to lose steam. As it is, there isn't really any clear successor, and the studio really doesn't need to be making that decision cold. I always say it's ridiculous to think Trek is out of story possibilities since you can literally tell any story in that universe, but I really think they need new blood. People will say Trek needs to cool off for a while and come back in ten or fifteen years, but that just doesn't make any sense to me. Given the right idea, it could come back tomorrow. Now this upcoming movie doesn't seem like the right idea. It seems like the worst possible compromise between Enterprise and TOS.

You have the most amazing talent for coming up with points that I can only just pause and accept as possibly being true. Most unfortunately my mental Trek encyclopedia has only been losing information for the past several years--especially where it concerns TOS, so I can't remember things like the title to the episode Let That Be Your Last Battlefield.

I have to force these things, I too have forgotten a lot of the material after years of letting it wane, so I either try to force my brain to recall information or go through a few minutes of research to track down what I can't remember. I'm not sure if I wish I was a walking Trek encyclopedia or if I'm grateful I'm not more of one. (On the other hand, I did actually remember "Patterns of Force" & "Bread & Circuses" for the next part of my post like it was written on my eyelids or something. )

I've always kind of wondered if TNG and all the sequel series didn't suffer a bit for being part of a world where a lot of the TOS ideals have already become fact. I'm sure I just can't see my own time period objectively, but it always seems like their are simply less issues for these later shows to look at.

That's exactly it, that was the advantage Roddenberry saw in a sequel set a century in the future from TOS, and it made life in TNG's era a tad too homogeneous to be as interesting as its progenitor - BIG WORD ATTACK!!! The challenges of life in Starfleet and the Federation was at the perfect level for immediate drama in TOS, they were still exploring a few of the rough edges of life in outer space, whereas by the time TNG came around life in space had become so safe that they could bring their kids onboard military vessels - the better writers and producers of the TNG era used these advantages of 24th century life to examine issues that TOS couldn't imagine, but there were a lot of instances where post-TNG didn't live up to that.

It always seems like the late sixties simply had for more issues for the writers to deal with and far fewer shows really trying to address them.

I guess the most important aspect of the 1960s that drove TOS to higher heights here is the sense of burgeoning exploration of space at that time, TOS predated man walking on the moon - today we treat that with almost a blaze' attitude. Personally, I think the failure is that we have stopped exploring space personally, we've stopped taking greater steps into the final frontier, stopped being excited about going out and physically DOING the exploration, and post-TNG-era reflects that.

Now it seems like anything Trek tries to deal with is either addressed sixty times a night on broadcast television alone and ninety times on cable or is so deeply taboo that the producers have to scale it back and opt not to do it. Again, maybe I'm just not seeing my time period objectively (and I certainly don't want to imply our time period is anywhere near perfect or that there are not serious issues), and maybe the producers simply lack the juevos to push ahead as they would have back in the sixties. Maybe I could say that there are fewer black and white issues in today's world and far more moral ambiguities, which not only allows more subtlety but necessitates it. It feels more mature to me to come away from the episode with questions rather than a feeling that they characters did the right thing and the only right thing. Certainly not saying I'm right and anyone else is wrong. It's just my preference.

Voyager and Enterprise suffered so greatly in that area, the whole Xindi thing was a slap in the face to Star Trek, they sold Trek's ideals out for a big action storyline that aped Sept 11th without looking at the greater human story there. Enterprise I think disappointed me most in how little it differed from Voyager's lackluster interest in raw exploration, both series paid space exploration lip service so they could tell these off-the-wall modern stories, but all the while they missed the fact that space exploration could BE the human story. The original Star Trek helped drive man into space, the passion that TOS created made Nichelle Nichols a NASA ambassador and got the very first space shuttle named after the NCC-1701. Today, Trek all but ignores that either for some interpersonal drama with no solid answers, or flashy action sequences.

Now that said, I could contradict myself by citing The City on the Edge of Forever. There was certainly no easy answer to that one and the episode came off beautifully. But I will say that kind of uncertainty was the exception to the rule.

Look at the drama there too, the story creates the situational human drama and it works perfectly, even Spock understands how troubling it must be for his comrades to let Edith Keeler die - then you look at TNG's Time's Arrow or DS9's Past Tense or Voyager's Future's End and it's all "safe" by comparison, everybody has a relatively easy time doing what needs to be done, and there's no sense of weight to anything they do.

Ah, the laugh out. Yeah, I haven't watched an episode of TOS in a while so I never even thought about the laugh out.

There's also moments where everything's going wrong and the music will lighten up for a second and Scotty will go off to get drunk instead of doing his job - granted, it's a cheap stereotype joke, but it also balances things a little from all the heavy stuff going on up on the bridge.

The risk was felt in that some of the humor involved some serious head scratching, but I think more conventional humor would have served better in many places. Think First Contact. It was very dramatic, very action oriented, but most of the humor was fairly conventional save the greatest risk: Cochrane. Not only could he have easily gone over the top but he was a reenvisioning of a character we had already met. I think they did well with it. Cochrane made me laugh with almost every line--still does, but it could have easily fallen flat. Maybe another problem is that the humor was often relegated to the B plot.

What works there is that Cochrane integrated the humor there without compromising who the character was or the integrity of the drama around him, it fit with ease, and I don't think any TNG-and-beyond series has been able to fit humor with ease into their regular episodes.

I'm wondering--and I'm purely speculating here--if Pocket Books didn't tell him they had to make a DS9 manual first.

That's very logical.

I can't call up the information on IMDB right now, but I know Sternbach wasn't credited as technical advisor on DS9 and I don't think Okuda was either, and I asked Sternbach a question one time about Defiant and was informed he could only guess because by that time he hadn't worked on Defiant in any capacity.

It seems like nobody really knew what the hell was going on with the Defiant, look at the deck layout and it doesn't fit the ship at all, it's from a much earlier, uglier prototype, that's the one they approved for the show itself! Anyway, Okuda was technical consultant on DS9 for 7 eps, and Sternbach was for 3 according to IMDB.

Sadly at that time I had no regular access to the Internet. But yeah, it was fun. I wonder if I ever did all there was to do in that. I can barely remember most of it, but I know I unlocked the hidden Klingon bridge from the -D's bridge.

The Klingon bridge was cool, but they needed to have more interactive stuff and details. There wasn't much to see in that CD-ROM actually, same with the Ent-D walkthrough CD-ROM (I don't remember the title, but Jonathan Frakes as Riker narrates it).

I still vaguely think about picking up the Starship Spotter book from time to time but then I think about what it could have been and I just can't bring myself to do it. I've also vaguely thought about picking up the Star Charts book. It looks beautiful--far more detailed than I would expect, and Timo, one of the contributors, was one of those friend of a friend types who hung out online with the Ex Astris crowd. But even at that time my Trek interest was waning.

Seems like those in control of the franchise halfass everything now because Trek isn't as enthusiastic a brand as Star Wars - makes me sick. There are so many more ideas and greater things out there to do with Trek than what they're willing to do. Then again, maybe the challenges will create a hunger for it and drive something better to happen.

Yeah, I'm more than happy to give Berman hell. He's mucked things up pretty well, but he was responsible for much of the goodness that was TNG. I think Berman should have been grooming his own Berman and handed off the reigns when he started to lose steam. As it is, there isn't really any clear successor, and the studio really doesn't need to be making that decision cold. I always say it's ridiculous to think Trek is out of story possibilities since you can literally tell any story in that universe, but I really think they need new blood. People will say Trek needs to cool off for a while and come back in ten or fifteen years, but that just doesn't make any sense to me. Given the right idea, it could come back tomorrow. Now this upcoming movie doesn't seem like the right idea. It seems like the worst possible compromise between Enterprise and TOS.

I cannot give Berman any credit for TNG's successes, he had so many people looking over his shoulder at that time making sure he lived up to Gene's ideals - hell, back then Nimoy and other Trek bigwigs would come on the lot and talk with Paramount about what was working and what wasn't. It wasn't till Voyager that Berman was given full control, that's coincidentally when Nimoy and the rest got kicked off the lot or walked away, and when it came out that Berman didn't like TOS.

You're right, Trek has a lot of stories left to tell, they just need a hook to get audiences fascinated again, and that hook cannot be a prequel because it's not open-ended. What made telling stories in the Ent-B and -C eras was the storytelling freedom there, you have 80 years of blank history to write, and no worries about using overpowered ideas like Borg or Q or Wesley Dimension-Hopping Crusher.

Darth Vader is becoming the Mickey Mouse of Star Wars.

"In Brooklyn, a castle, is where dwell I"

The use of a lightsaber does not make one a Jedi, it is the ability to not use it.